Does Freedom of Expression Include a Right to an Audience?

Suppose someone is allowed to speak at a community forum, but people gradually leave the room. Has the speaker's freedom of expression been violated? Usually not. Freedom of expression primarily limits the power of others to suppress a view. It does not automatically create a right to make particular people stay, listen, share or agree.

In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill opposed the suppression of opinion not only because the speaker might be right, but because society would lose the chance to test truth against error. His argument protects open conditions for thought and discussion. It does not claim that every opinion deserves an equal share of attention. Attention is finite, and listening is itself a choice; compelling an audience would sacrifice the audience's freedom.

Yet the absence of an audience is not always merely the result of individual choice. If a public institution admits only one viewpoint to a shared forum, or if a few gatekeepers arbitrarily close an almost irreplaceable channel, the issue becomes the fairness of participation. We should distinguish the negative liberty not to be suppressed from a claim that an institution must provide reasonable access. The latter needs a separate argument about the institution's role, scarce resources and consistent rules.

My judgement is that freedom of expression gives no ownership over a particular audience's attention, but it does require that entrances to public discussion not be arbitrarily sealed. Being free to speak, making someone listen and requiring a platform to amplify speech are three different claims. The word freedom cannot establish all three at once.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/